# Another Accident on rt 4



## PsyOps

http://www.thebaynet.com/news/index.cfm/fa/viewstory/story_ID/36984

Drove by it on the way to PF.  Horrible scene as you can see by the photos.  There is really something wrong with this stretch of road from Sixes to just north of Mr. Tire that so many serious accidents happen.


----------



## vraiblonde

PsyOps said:


> There is really something wrong with this stretch of road from Sixes to just north of Mr. Tire that so many serious accidents happen.



And yet hundreds, thousands?, of people drive it every day without incident.  Same with the bridge.  So I will suggest the problem is not with the road.


----------



## PsyOps

vraiblonde said:


> And yet hundreds, thousands?, of people drive it every day without incident.  Same with the bridge.  So I will suggest the problem is not with the road.



You trying to start a fight with me?  

I know it's the drivers.  I drive 4 every day and this stretch has a problem where accidents are becoming more prevalent.  And they aren’t just fender benders; they are disasters.  Speed, blind entrances, people not using turn signals… I typically blame poor driving skills on accidents, but when they happen often in one area, something else is a factor.


----------



## terbear1225

pretty sure this accident was the end of a police chase.  I would assume that was the overriding factor this time.


----------



## glhs837

Looks like it happened just north of this driveway. Want to bet on a simple failure to yield? Poor driving. Most of the accidents we see on 4 are people who just cant comprehend that you cannot just enter a 55 mph freeway at 5mph.


----------



## Hank

glhs837 said:


> Looks like it happened just north of this driveway. Want to bet on a simple failure to yield? Poor driving. Most of the accidents we see on 4 are people who just cant comprehend that you cannot just enter a 55 mph freeway at 5mph.



Especially when the vehicles are going 80mph.


----------



## mamatutu

glhs837 said:


> Looks like it happened just north of this driveway. Want to bet on a simple failure to yield? Poor driving. Most of the accidents we see on 4 are people who just cant comprehend that you cannot just enter a 55 mph freeway at 5mph.



That was my thought, as well.  I have seen drivers pull out at a snail's pace in front of traffic, or zip across when it is not safe, so they can go north.  It makes me cringe, and I slow down, and hope there is not an accident.  I can't imagine that whoever was driving the white car survived.  Truly awful.


----------



## Vince

PsyOps said:


> You trying to start a fight with me?
> 
> I know it's the drivers.  I drive 4 every day and this stretch has a problem where accidents are becoming more prevalent.  And they aren’t just fender benders; they are disasters.  Speed, blind entrances, people not using turn signals… I typically blame poor driving skills on accidents, but when they happen often in one area, something else is a factor.


I know.  I know the answer.  MORE STOP LIGHTS!


----------



## glhs837

Hank said:


> Especially when the vehicles are going 80mph.



And you know the truck was going 80 because? I know the average speeds on 4 pretty good, and 80s an outlier. Most folks are in the 65-70 range tops, in the left lane, with the right being closer to 60ish. All the crashes I see happen on 4, and I read the reports pretty close, I rarely see speed as the primary cause, very few are not failure to yield. The occasional person who crosses the median, but those pare pretty rare. I'm open to new data if you have any.


----------



## garyt27

They will put in traffic control device at Sixes & 4, After development starts near that intersection, which should start soon. Too late IMHO.



Vince said:


> I know.  I know the answer.  MORE STOP LIGHTS!


----------



## CrashTest

glhs837 said:


> Most of the accidents we see on 4 are people who just cant comprehend that you cannot just enter a 55 mph freeway at 5mph.



This is why I was opposed to the Tom Hodges road.  If you can't reduce the number of idiots, then the only thing you can do is reduce the number of opportunities for them to be idiots.


----------



## RoseRed

CrashTest said:


> This is why I was opposed to the Tom Hodges road.  If you can't reduce the number of idiots, then the only thing you can do is reduce the number of opportunities for them to be idiots.



I haven't seen one accident there, unlike the Saint John's crossover.


----------



## glhs837

garyt27 said:


> They will put in traffic control device at Sixes & 4, After development starts near that intersection, which should start soon. Too late IMHO.



But this accident apparentley happened before that intersection going north, so a light there wouldn't have done squat for this accident


----------



## CrashTest

RoseRed said:


> I haven't seen one accident there, unlike the Saint John's crossover.


  Then close St John's and move everyone down to Hodges.  Maybe Hodges is magical.  

Either way, unsignalized, at-grade intersections on these high speed roads are a disaster waiting to happen as glhs points out.


----------



## RoseRed

CrashTest said:


> Then close St John's and move everyone down to Hodges.  Maybe Hodges is magical.
> 
> Either way, unsignalized, at-grade intersections on these high speed roads are a disaster waiting to happen as glhs points out.



A light was supposed to be installed at the Saint John's intersection, but I don't know what the status is on that.  I use Tom Hodges each and every day and have never had a problem.  I just wait until there is enough time to cross.  That happens easily due to the traffic lights at Airport Drive and Sotterley Road.  It really isn't that big of a deal.


----------



## RareBreed

Up-date...
http://smnewsnet.com/archives/10221...leeing-from-state-police-in-prince-frederick/


----------



## glhs837

Yep, one of the oddballs. For those unwilling to click a link, the driver of the smaller white car was fleeing police, and was southbound in the northbound lane. Fatal mistake on his part.


----------



## Hank

glhs837 said:


> And you know the truck was going 80 because? I know the average speeds on 4 pretty good, and 80s an outlier. Most folks are in the 65-70 range tops, in the left lane, with the right being closer to 60ish. All the crashes I see happen on 4, and I read the reports pretty close, I rarely see speed as the primary cause, very few are not failure to yield. The occasional person who crosses the median, but those pare pretty rare. I'm open to new data if you have any.



Dude, I was just making a comment that people go way too fast on that road. Take it easy.


----------



## glhs837

Hank said:


> Dude, I was just making a comment that people go way too fast on that road. Take it easy.



And I was rebutting your comment, I was easy  If people traveled "way too fast" there would be a lot more crashes than there are.


----------



## Hank

glhs837 said:


> And I was rebutting your comment, I was easy  If people traveled "way too fast" there would be a lot more crashes than there are.



Well, when I am going 65, and I travel 4 a lot, people are blazing by me. I estimate 80mph. You don't have to crash to drive like an ass/hole.


----------



## MMDad

glhs837 said:


> If people traveled "way too fast" there would be a lot more crashes than there are.



There are a lot of crashes in that area, and speed is related to many of them. When people are driving faster than their car or their skill level can handle, speed is a problem. When the road has multiple limited sight lines, speed is a problem.


----------



## glhs837

Hank said:


> Well, when I am going 65, and I travel 4 a lot, people are blazing by me. I estimate 80mph. You don't have to crash to drive like an ass/hole.





Ah, the old visual estimation of speed, done from a moving car........ the accuracy of that method is a bit unreliable. Vry few people can accurately judge speed visually. 





MMDad said:


> There are a lot of crashes in that area, and speed is related to many of them. When people are driving faster than their car or their skill level can handle, speed is a problem. When the road has multiple limited sight lines, speed is a problem.




Speed is related to all of them, since if there were no speed there would be no crash. If I'm going 60 and you pull out in front of me suddenly, speed was a factor. but not the cause. Me not stopping to get a cup of caffe was a factor too. The cause was you pulling out, or in this case, driving at me head on. This focus on speed and ignoring of the failure to yield problem is one reason you have so many crashes all along 4. As for that area, look here

https://www.google.com/maps/place/S...2!3m1!1s0x89b779b7c0a9d2e5:0xf73d9aecf203881c

Lots of little entrances, driveways and such. Want to bet that most of the crashes in that area are a result of people entering the roadway in an unsafe manner?


----------



## Hank

glhs837 said:


> Ah, the old visual estimation of speed, done from a moving car........ the accuracy of that method is a bit unreliable. Vry few people can accurately judge speed visually.



I guess I am one of the chosen few.


----------



## glhs837

Hank said:


> I guess I am one of the chosen few.



And you have verified your visual estimations with your handy dandy radar gun? Or do you routinely catch up to and pace the "lunatic" just too see how fast they were going?


----------



## MMDad

glhs837 said:


> Lots of little entrances, driveways and such. Want to bet that most of the crashes in that area are a result of people entering the roadway in an unsafe manner?



And lots of limited sight lines, where if someone is expecting traffic to be moving at 60 it seems like there is room to safely enter. When you ramp that up to 75, it's very easy to out drive the sight lines. Sure, the person entering the road did so in an unsafe manner, but if people weren't going too fast the crash probably wouldn't have happened.

I would agree with your general premise that speed does not cause most accidents, but there are places where the road design makes speed a much more critical factor. That stretch of 4 is one of them. Since we know that SHA is never going to fix the problems, the only other way to make it safer is to stop the high speed drivers.


----------



## Hank

glhs837 said:


> And you have verified your visual estimations with your handy dandy radar gun? Or do you routinely catch up to and pace the "lunatic" just too see how fast they were going?



How are you estimating the speed then, Genius? Your handy dandy stats?


----------



## glhs837

MMDad said:


> And lots of limited sight lines, where if someone is expecting traffic to be moving at 60 it seems like there is room to safely enter. When you ramp that up to 75, it's very easy to out drive the sight lines. Sure, the person entering the road did so in an unsafe manner, but if people weren't going too fast the crash probably wouldn't have happened.
> 
> I would agree with your general premise that speed does not cause most accidents, but there are places where the road design makes speed a much more critical factor. That stretch of 4 is one of them. Since we know that SHA is never going to fix the problems, the only other way to make it safer is to stop the high speed drivers.





Distance traveled at 75 vice 60 not all that large, in terms of sight lines, not to mention that the great majority of folks going that speed are going to be in the left lane. The difference in feet per second between 75mph and 60mph is 22 feet per second. and a second is a long time. Now, going 110mph, that''s the sort of speed you can expect people not to visually understand and get wrong, being as it's 161fps. You can stop all the speeders going 11-12 over you want, but until you address the people who think that pulling onto a highway with oncoming traffic is a thing to do with caution, this sort of thing will keep happening.


----------



## glhs837

Hank said:


> How are you estimating the speed then, Genius? Your handy dandy stats?



I do pay close attention how many folks are pacing me, falling behind me, or passing me. My goal is to generally never be in a pack of cars. I try to keep myself between packs and so pay attention to what the packs are doing If there's an excessive fast individual, I sometimes will accelerate just long enough to see how fast they are going, then drop back. and I can tell you that my average of about 8-9mph over the limit is a couple mph shy of the average in the left lane, given how often I have to get over to let folks pass. I set my cruise at about 63-64, and while I'm usually passing the traffic on the right, it's not by a huge margin. And anyone doing 55 is causing is huge issue, as they will have people backed up behind them. I'll bet the SHA has a survey on file showing the 85th percentile, and thats it's not 55mph. But it's not 80 either, I'll bet


----------



## glhs837

http://tollroadsnews.com/news/maryland-md200icc-keeps-low-low-speed-limit

Good read.


----------



## Hank

glhs837 said:


> I do pay close attention how many folks are pacing me, falling behind me, or passing me. My goal is to generally never be in a pack of cars. I try to keep myself between packs and so pay attention to what the packs are doing If there's an excessive fast individual, I sometimes will accelerate just long enough to see how fast they are going, then drop back. and I can tell you that my average of about 8-9mph over the limit is a couple mph shy of the average in the left lane, given how often I have to get over to let folks pass. I set my cruise at about 63-64, and while I'm usually passing the traffic on the right, it's not by a huge margin. And anyone doing 55 is causing is huge issue, as they will have people backed up behind them. I'll bet the SHA has a survey on file showing the 85th percentile, and thats it's not 55mph. But it's not 80 either, I'll bet



Well...unfortunately, it sounds like I don't have this Jedi power to estimate speed like you do. I travel Rt. 4 throughout the day and I will stand by my statement. If they aren't going 80 when they fly by, its damn close. Several times, I have had to accelerate to over 70 to get out of the left lane.


----------



## glhs837

No Jedi power, I dont claim to be able to judge another cars speed by just watching it, I judge exact numbers of individuals by pacing, or general by seeing who is overtaking staying the same of falling behind. Overtaking cars and those falling behind, I don't claim to judge those other than "faster or slower than 64". And the speed you need to achieve to get out of the lane has no bearing on their real speed, just speaks to your perception of how fast they are going.


----------



## Hank

glhs837 said:


> No Jedi power, I dont claim to be able to judge another cars speed by just watching it, I judge exact numbers of individuals by pacing, or general by seeing who is overtaking staying the same of falling behind. Overtaking cars and those falling behind, I don't claim to judge those other than "faster or slower than 64". And the speed you need to achieve to get out of the lane has no bearing on their real speed, just speaks to your perception of how fast they are going.



Regardless the speed, folks drive reckless and inattentive down 4.... I witness it every day.


----------



## Hank

And worse on the back roads of Calvert.


----------



## glhs837

Hank said:


> Regardless the speed, folks drive reckless and inattentive down 4.... I witness it every day.



I agree with both of those statements.


----------



## Roman

One does not have to be speeding to be involved in a fatal wreck. I do agree with you Hank, that route 4 is sometimes like the Indy 500. I rarely go above the limit, and if I do, it's rarely above 60. I stay in the right lane, and watch people blow right past me.


----------



## Hank

Roman said:


> One does not have to be speeding to be involved in a fatal wreck. I do agree with you Hank, that route 4 is sometimes like the Indy 500. I rarely go above the limit, and if I do, it's rarely above 60. I stay in the right lane, and watch people blow right past me.



Same here. I'm in no hurry. You just end up sitting with the same clowns at the next light. Now, when someone tails me in the right lane, I will slow down 5mph and let them no that I am in no hurry.


----------



## luvmygdaughters

Wasn't this the high speed chase where the guy in the white car was driving in the wrong direction on Rt. 4, either north in the southbound lane or vice versa.  He was trying to outrun the state police and the chase was actually called off by the police when the guy was headed in the wrong direction.  Unfortunately, the driver of the Escape was an innocent victim.


----------



## SoMDGirl42

Hank said:


> Same here. I'm in no hurry. You just end up sitting with the same clowns at the next light. Now, when someone tails me in the right lane, I will slow down 5mph and let them no that I am in no hurry.



You are going to let them NO you are in no hurry huh?


----------



## garyt27

Yes, I know that. I was commenting on Vinces sarcasm. However a control device ther could have prevented some in the past.





glhs837 said:


> But this accident apparentley happened before that intersection going north, so a light there wouldn't have done squat for this accident


----------



## RPMDAD

Hank said:


> Same here. I'm in no hurry. You just end up sitting with the same clowns at the next light. Now, when someone tails me in the right lane, I will slow down 5mph and let them no that I am in no hurry.



Same here Hank, i am not a big fan of nor do i brake check a car tailgating me, i just slow down 5mph, till they decide to go around me.  PS, am normally in the right lane on rte. 4 and only get in the left for passing or if i am getting to make a left hand turn coming up shortly.


----------



## PrchJrkr

Okay, so we are all in agreement about the douchebag motorists going 15+ miles over the limit and glhs837 should be taken off of the road because he's too old to have a license. If you can't control your bladder, you can't control a car...


----------



## garyt27

PrchJrkr said:


> Okay, so we are all in agreement about the douchebag motorists going 15+ miles over the limit and glhs837 should be taken off of the road because he's too old to have a license. If you can't control your bladder, you can't control a car...


The day 'We are all in agreement" on this site will be the "Day the earth stood still"


----------



## DEEKAYPEE8569

vraiblonde said:


> And yet hundreds, thousands?, of people drive it every day without incident.  Same with the bridge.  So I will suggest the problem is not with the road.


 IAW your last statement; I submit, folks talking on the phone, texting, the 'screw you/hooray for me' mindset, non-signaling lane changers; ie; onto 235S from the bridge, cutting into the turn lane into WaWa. Hmmm.....what else.....


----------



## glhs837

PrchJrkr said:


> Okay, so we are all in agreement about the douchebag motorists going 15+ miles over the limit and glhs837 should be taken off of the road because he's too old to have a license. If you can't control your bladder, you can't control a car...



Dont be hatin.......

http://www.biorelief.com/uriwell-unisex-personal-toilet.html 

And I now blame you for the fact that I now know this product exists...........  And really, its not so much a +/- of the limit so much as a difference between one driver and the traffic flow, but that varys. Doing 95 across an empty stretch of 75 Nevada desert, not such a big deal. 70 on the BW parkway when everyone else is doing 55, that's deadly.


----------



## MMDad

glhs837 said:


> 70 on the BW parkway when everyone else is doing 55, that's deadly.



Then you must agree that it's deadly on Rt. 4 since the BW parkway at least has controlled access.


----------



## glhs837

MMDad said:


> Then you must agree that it's deadly on Rt. 4 since the BW parkway at least has controlled access.




Not on all of Rt 4, depends on traffic flow access and sightlines. some parts of Rt 4, yes. Others, not a problem, given an attentive driver and a vehicle that isn't falling apart. Little to no traffic in the places with fewer entrances and or entrances that are clearly visible, it would be fine. Note I dont mention a requirement that people entering the highway do so safely. Even if they do so unsafely, travelling that speed should allow plenty of time to react and deconflict for any driver paying proper attention. Obviously, 70 through PF would not be advisable.  I do 9 over becuase that's where I am reasonably certain I wont get a ticket, not because I feel 64 is the safest speed for me under all conditions on that whole road. 

On a realted note, saw an article this AM about an overturned vehicle up in Calvert, and this was one of the comments 

http://www.thebaynet.com/news/index.cfm/fa/viewstory/story_ID/37012



> Unfortunately route 4 connects to Saint Mary's via the Solomon's bridge, allowing half of Saint Mary's to travel through Calvert. If Saint Mary's residents would travel up their own route 5, this would eliminate more than half of the accidents. The only reason for traffic on route 4 is due to Saint Mary's county. Close the bridge for a day and see how nice Calvert would be to drive through, the residents of Calvert would never want to re-open it. To all Saint Mary's residents, stay on your side of the river, it would make things a lot nicer...and more safe for that matter!




Bwuhahahahaha!!!!!!! Yep, just shut the bridge down and watch the fires burn  Bet that person has no damn clue how much of Calverts tax base gets paid by people who cross that bridge to high paying jobs here in St Mary's.


----------



## garyt27

That's a stupid statement alright. 
Then I was thinking if the bridge was never built then maybe Calvert would still be growing tobacco, and all the growth would have been in St. Marys. I should add: Sooner.
No?


----------



## PsyOps

So, there was ANOTHER major accident in this same stretch of road (near the Mr. Tire) yesterday.  I haven't found a report on it yet.


----------



## mdff21

Car northbound on Rt. 4 blew a tire and went across the median.  No injuries.


----------



## PsyOps

mdff21 said:


> Car northbound on Rt. 4 blew a tire and went across the median.  No injuries.



Conveniently right near the Mr. Tire place.


----------



## glhs837

PsyOps said:


> Conveniently right near the Mr. Tire place.




Aha!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## BadGirl

One of my nieces was involved in a horrific accident in that stretch last September involving a head-on collission into her vehicle.

She has had probably 17 different surgeries, with more to come.  She still walks with a walker, and is still unable to return to work or fully take care of herself.

All because the other driver was driving distracted and wrecklessly.


----------



## DEEKAYPEE8569

BadGirl said:


> One of my nieces was involved in a horrific accident in that stretch last September involving a head-on collission into her vehicle.
> 
> She has had probably 17 different surgeries, with more to come.  She still walks with a walker, and is still unable to return to work or fully take care of herself.
> 
> _All because the other driver was driving distracted and wrecklessly_.



Texting would be my guess.


----------



## PsyOps

BadGirl said:


> One of my nieces was involved in a horrific accident in that stretch last September involving a head-on collission into her vehicle.
> 
> She has had probably 17 different surgeries, with more to come.  She still walks with a walker, and is still unable to return to work or fully take care of herself.
> 
> All because the other driver was driving distracted and wrecklessly.



But I am still wondering what is about that stretch of road that has more accidents than any other that I drive.  I get caught up in an accident almost every week on 4; and this is anywhere from Port Republic to Suitland.  The two places that seem to have the most is the stretch in the wooded area just north of 260 and the stretch from Sixes to Broomes Island; especially right around the Mr. Tire area.  I know it's peoples' poor driving, but is there something in that stretch that is causing people to loosen up or feel more free to diddle around with their phones?  If you notice too, there have been more cops pulling folks over in that stretch lately.


----------



## Roman

BadGirl said:


> One of my nieces was involved in a horrific accident in that stretch last September involving a head-on collission into her vehicle.
> 
> She has had probably 17 different surgeries, with more to come.  She still walks with a walker, and is still unable to return to work or fully take care of herself.
> 
> All because the other driver was driving distracted and wrecklessly.


----------



## MMDad

PsyOps said:


> But I am still wondering what is about that stretch of road that has more accidents than any other that I drive.  I get caught up in an accident almost every week on 4; and this is anywhere from Port Republic to Suitland.  The two places that seem to have the most is the stretch in the wooded area just north of 260 and the stretch from Sixes to Broomes Island; especially right around the Mr. Tire area.  I know it's peoples' poor driving, but is there something in that stretch that is causing people to loosen up or feel more free to diddle around with their phones?  If you notice too, there have been more cops pulling folks over in that stretch lately.



I think that the hills have something to do with it. People are unaware of the impact gravity has on their speed. Add in people getting in and out of business and crossing over, and the lack of crossover protection in that area. I don't think that there are actually more accidents there, but they tend to be more serious.


----------

